Observational studyScandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine2026
Evaluation of the trauma criteria from the Norwegian national trauma plan: an observational study from a regional trauma centre.
Observational study in Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe national trauma plan defines common Norwegian criteria dictating which patients are met by a trauma team. Precise criteria are important to avoid undertriage and overtriage. Previous studies have indicated that both overtriage and undertriage fail to meet the goals of the Norwegian Trauma Plan, and the aim of the study was to investigate the performance of the new national criteria.
methodsThis is a retrospective cohort study of patients included in the trauma registry at Haukeland University Hospital between 2017 and 2021. Injury Severity Score (ISS) was extracted from the registry. Prehospital records were manually reviewed to determine which trauma criteria were met. The aim was to analyse how well the national trauma criteria predicted ISS > 15, and if national goals of overtriage and undertriage were met.
resultsA total of 2508 patients were eligible for analysis, whereas 384 had an ISS > 15, with a total overtriage of 81.1%. Forty-four patients had an ISS > 15 without meeting the criteria, resulting in an undertriage of 11.5%. If hypothetically 4 Patient factors was analysed as an individual criteria group, undertriage would have been 2.9%. Patients who did not meet any criteria had an overtriage of 97.6%. Mechanism of injury (MOI) predicted ISS > 15 in nine of 333 patients, resulting in an overtriage of 97.3% for this criteria group. Hypothetical removal of the MOI criteria except 3.6 Fall would in this data set eliminate 255 Trauma team activations (TTA) among patients with ISS < 15.
conclusionsOvertriage was high overall and across all criteria groups. Patients who triggered a TTA despite not meeting any criteria also demonstrated substantial overtriage. To optimize resource use, criteria with low positive predictive value could be assigned fewer resources or revised to reduce unnecessary activations. Our findings support re-evaluation of specific criteria, particularly those related to mechanism of injury.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.